The FDLE was legally responsible based on Florida Law to follow-up with the Melbourne Mall Shooter, not the seller.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant had a duty to properly notify law enforcement of Shooters failed background check, however they have failed to cite to any statute or law to support such an allegation.

In fact, Defendants have no such duty; under the common law or otherwise. Under Florida law, there is generally “no duty to control the conduct of a third person to prevent him or her from causing physical harm to another.” Carney v. Gambel, 751 So.2d 653, 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

DUTY OF CARE

A duty of care arises from four potential sources: (1) legislative enactments; (2) judicial interpretations of such enactments or regulations; (3) other judicial precedent; or (4) a duty arising from the general facts of the case. Dorsey v. Reider, 139 So. 3d 860, 863-64 (Fla. 2014). None of these listed sources place a duty on Defendants to notify Federal, State, or local authorities.

FDLE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL

As explained above, Shooter’s conditional approval was revoked by FDLE on January 7, 2015; 19 days after the gun was lawfully transferred and 10 days before the shooting. Pursuant to Florida Statute, § 790.065(2)(c)(7)(b), once FDLE determined that Shooter was not eligible to purchase the Subject Gun, FDLE had a duty to 1) revoke Shooter’s conditional approval, and 2) notify local law enforcement. As a result of the statute, the FDLE has a duty to inform local law enforcement of Shooter’s denial, not Defendants.

Furthermore, as indicated in MPD’s report and corroborated by video surveillance in possession of MPD and presumably available to Plaintiff, Defendants contacted Shooter upon the notification of the denial. Shooter came to Defendants’ store on January 8, 2015, at which time Defendants informed Shooter that he had been denied and he could return the Subject Gun or risk having it ceased by Palm Bay Police. Shooter refused to return the Subject Gun and left the store. MPD notated in its report that they were provided a copy of the video containing this conversation on February 5, 2015. [Exhibit A]. Once Shooter refused to return the Subject Gun, and due to FDLE’s statutory duty to inform local police of Shooter’s denial, it was the duty of the FLDE notify the proper authorities and local law enforcement to take possession of the Subject Gun, not Defendants.

As a result, Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants have a duty to notify law enforcement of Shooters denial is not supported by existing law under the facts of this matter.